Chris Pine – People Talking

Movie Review – ‘Wonder Woman’ – What Do We Have Here?

Directed by Patty Jenkins
Written by Allan Heinberg (story and screenplay), Zack Snyder (story), and Jason Fuchs (story), based on the character “Wonder Woman” created by William Moulton Marston
Cast: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen, Elena Anaya, David Thewlis, Lucy Davis, Danny Huston, Saïd Taghmaoui, Ewen Bremner, Eugene Brave Rock, Wolf Kahler, Ann Ogbomo, Eleanor Matsuura, Doutzen Kroes, Samantha Jo, Brooke Ence, Florence Kasumba, Emily Carey, Lisa Loven Kongsli, Lilly Aspell
Soundtrack: Rupert Gregson-Williams

Ever since Chris Nolan and company packed up shop after The Dark Night Rises in 2012, DC’s been having a rough go of it, to say the least. Their attempt to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe with an Extended Universe of their own has so far resulted in three films (Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad) that have largely failed to win over critics and moviegoers alike (though at least they haven’t been unprofitable).

However, despite this track record, I got the feeling that Wonder Woman could turn the tide, or at least stand against it, if only because it’s set so far in the past that the filmmakers could pretty much do whatever they want with it, without worrying too much about fitting it in with the rest of the Universe. In other words, the question is not, “Could this be the best DCEU movie?” That’s not difficult to imagine. The question is: “Could Wonder Woman actually be a good movie relative to other good movies?”

Well, disappointingly, no. Wonder Woman is every bit as bloated, confusing, and tonally dissonant as its three predecessors (in some ways perhaps more so). The only real distinction is that it’s a bit nicer to look at.

I’m not joking. There’s a whole bunch of great visual concepts in this film, and some award-worthy production design to back it all up, so in that regard you know there were some talented people who worked on this picture, but, unfortunately, I still found myself saying at the end of the first act “I haven’t connected with this yet; this is a problem,” and nothing much came afterward to change that assessment.

One of the most glaring issues, and it absolutely pains me to say so, is Wonder Woman herself, Gal Gadot. There’s no question she’s a fine-looking woman, and I bet she’s a first class human being, but her acting shoulders are not broad enough to carry a movie the way she’s expected to here. I’ve seen her do well in supporting roles (I love her in the Fast & Furious movies), but ultimately I think she’s been miscast, and her performance quite often took me out of the film. It’s not entirely her fault, as the proliferation of bad dialogue (and/or poor acting) is not limited strictly to her character, but, as I said in my review of Superman: some call it corny, I call it earnest, but one reason why that movie works is because Christopher Reeve is a great actor whose performance makes you believe what you’re seeing. No such luck with Wonder Woman.

Another major problem, at least for me, is the action. There are times when sequences should be shot more naturalistic or more stylized (you know, one or the other), and this film tends to throw it all together with a lot of signature Zack Snyder SLOW DOWN-SPEED UP-REPEAT (which became a tired trope well before this movie). This messes with the tone of the action scenes which in turn hurts the emotional resonance of the film (not to mention the CGI looks super janky at times; maybe if the movie wasn’t 141 minutes long they wouldn’t have had to stretch the effects budget quite so far).

Beyond that, it’s hard to put my finger on exactly why the film doesn’t work, and I don’t want to get into a DC vs. Marvel pissing contest here (I’m on record as historically being more of a DC guy anyway), but it seems fair to compare Wonder Woman to something like Thor, in that both movies have protagonists with mythological origins (and scenes with mythological exposition) who become fish-out-of-water. Now, I’m not going to argue that Thor is an all-time great, but it is a solid movie, and it succeeds where Wonder Woman fails in reconciling some inherently “silly” elements with more grounded ones (though this issue is not exclusive to DC; The Amazing Spider-Man movies are just as unsuccessful in this regard).

Overall, Wonder Woman is a mix of good and bad ideas, and the result is something that looks appetizing but is ultimately unsatisfying. I wanted to like it; I definitely didn’t hate it (like another recent blockbuster). There’s some stuff that from a conceptual standpoint I love (the World War I settings in particular), and some of the supporting players are a bright spot, but as an entire movie, I can’t give it a passing grade; there just wasn’t enough entertainment.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
No stingers or any other end credits sequences.

Movie Review – ‘Hell or High Water’ – Lords of the Plains

Directed by David Mackenzie
Written by Taylor Sheridan
Cast: Chris Pine, Ben Foster, Jeff Bridges, Gil Birmingham, Dale Dickey, Buck Taylor, Katy Mixon, Kevin Rankin
Soundtrack: Nick Cave & Warren Ellis

West Texas is poor, banks are bad, and Shiner Bock and Lone Star Beer are good (not to mention Pabst Blue Ribbon).

I don’t think it’s cliché to say we don’t really get major films like ‘Hell or High Water’ much anymore. You know, a movie with an original script, a few big name actors to carry the load, a budget that’s more than a few dollars but less than a hundred million, and a compelling story rather than a series of scenes leading from one schlock action set piece to the next.

It’ll inevitably be compared to ‘No Country for Old Men‘, which is fair, given that they’re set in the same general vicinity and both center around cash, but I’d call ‘High Water’ less surreal than your typical Coen Brothers affair, and more forthright with its sense of humor (plus, it’s not based on a book).

Much of ‘Hell or High Water’ is straightforward, including the plot. A pair of brothers, Toby and Tanner (Chris Pine and Ben Foster), start robbing banks in order to raise enough money to wrangle control of their mama’s land back from the bank, and it’s up to Texas Rangers Marcus and Alberto (Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham) to put a stop to it.

It might seem small time in comparison to other heist films, but part of what makes ‘Hell or High Water’ so fascinating is that it does feel down-to-earth and quite plausible. Yes, it’s entertaining and it’ll make you laugh, but it doesn’t rely on a whole lot of flash; just a tightly written story and some top notch performances. If you really want to be critical, you might say Jeff Bridges is just doing a rehash of his “Rooster Cogburn” from ‘True Grit‘, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say they are distinct characters, plus the interplay between him and Gil Birmingham is fantastic.

As far as our brothers go, Chris Pine and Ben Foster really dig in as a couple of poor cowpokes with their eyes on a prize. Outlaws they may be, but they’re still very much the heart of the movie, and the tension of whether they’ll get away with it or not is very much set in the nature of who they are individually.

If I have one legitimate criticism of the film, it’s that some little bits of dialogue are muffled by the thick accents (which I don’t normally struggle with), but I guess it comes with the territory.

Other than that, I don’t want to say much more. Like ‘The Nice Guys‘ and ‘Hunt for the Wilderpeople‘, ‘Hell or High Water’ seems bound to be in the top 5 of 2016. It’s definitely slower-paced than usual, so be prepared for that, but I’d never call it boring. There’s too much tension for things to ever fall flat.

This is one you don’t want to miss.

Rating: ★★★★½

P.S.
Shades of ‘Breaking Bad’? Absolutely.

Movie Review – ‘Star Trek Beyond’ – “Aye, well played.”

Directed by Justin Lin
Written by Simon Pegg & Doug Jung, based on the television series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella, Deep Roy, Greg Grunberg
Soundtrack: Michael Giacchino

If we’re all being honest here, the initial marketing for ‘Star Trek Beyond’ was, shall we say, worrisome.

Thankfully, someone was listening. and the marketing got better, unlike some other recent release in which every single last trailer was awful (hint: starts with a G). Even so, I didn’t exactly have high expectations for this movie going into it. All I really wanted was for the latest Star Trek installment to be better then the last one (NSFW), which was such a hot mess that even Skyline Chili would call it a hot mess.

Fortunately, I’m happy to report that ‘Star Trek Beyond’ is a fine picture, certainly better than its predecessor, and largely up to the standard of the original 2009 reboot. That’s not to say it’s perfect; frankly, it’s missing something I can’t quite put my finger on, but I’ll definitely watch it again in the future.

Firstly though, let’s talk about the negative. The biggest problem I have with this movie, shockingly, is the visuals. That’s not to say the effects aren’t what they should be; they’re more than adequate. No, I’m talking about the actual movement of the camera, particularly during action sequences. Oftentimes, it’s so close to the action that you can’t even make out what’s really happening (aka “Who’s punching who?”); while other times it is a reasonable distance away, but it’s still shaking so much that you just want to die. Honestly, I got more dizzy watching ‘Star Trek Beyond’ than I did watching ‘Hardcore Henry‘, a movie that takes place entirely in the first person. I mean, seriously, it’s been 40 years since the Steadicam entered the movie-making fray; why is Hollywood trying to kill us with this shaky-cam madness?

But, I digress.

By far the strongest aspect of ‘Beyond’ is the script (especially when compared to ‘Into Darkness’). I’d venture to say it’s the tightest script for a Star Trek movie in 25 years (although that motorcycle is still never properly explained). More importantly, however, is that of the three “new timeline” movies, ‘Star Trek Beyond’ unquestionably comes the closest to matching the tone of the original series, which, even as a casual fan of the franchise, is much appreciated. And yet, the movie has some of its own unique touches, which not everybody may like, but at least the movie’s not merely trying to hit you with as many recognizable Star Trek references as possible.

Other than that, the cast does what they’re there to do, and I actually liked Sofia Boutella as “Jaylah” in particular, although Idris Elba gets the Trooper Award for being buried under all that makeup and prostheses. Most importantly, I appreciated how the filmmakers handled the tributes to the late Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin; it’s literally a moment of silence within the end credits that says it all.

Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it enough to cleanse your palate from the awfulness of ‘Into Darkness’? Yes, and that’s all it needs to be.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse and Mondo for the usual opening night accouterments and specials. The “Finagle’s Folly” cocktail was quite…green.

Who says you can’t like both?